Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
CICO is not the whole equation
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »
What? That's your slam dunk? Your claim is worthless unless you are willing, or able to show us those said scans and all the context of each patient (diet and lifestyle) that goes with them...
No wasn't meant to be a slam dunk, wham bham thank you ma'am, end of story, and although it was one line, it wasn't meant to be a one liner. Just the most powerful truth as I see it with my own eyes.
But with respect to the info I have at my disposal, it is by far the most powerful demonstration to me. But of course, it has to be limited to just me. Or else privacy laws would have me incarcerated!
So, yes, to you my claim is in fact worthless, unless you are willing to take a leap of faith. Not sure why it is such a huge leap of faith though. You already believe that in general eating less is a good thing, and you seem to believe in the concept that certain foods provide value from a nutrition standpoint. I'm just not sure why it is such a massive woo-like crazymaking stretch to also consider that most foods created with heavy artificial influence actually can be harmful. And there's really nothing to lose by giving up certain foods except taste... and that taste actually turns from positive to negative once the food is eliminated for a period of time. The only thing in my mind (I guess I have to fill in the blanks) to explain this reluctance to consider this concept is that there is an emotional or neurochemical connection/attachment (or perhaps dependence) on having these foods around to warrant a denial to even consider that they may not be compatible with our physiology.
And yes, we cna put together a patient's history with their scan findings, which are NOT subtle.
You assume I have not tried this already while coming to my own conclusion...
No, I think I have read before that you did try way the of eating that I currently do. Or maybe another poster said that about you, I'm not sure.
But I have to ask... was your barometer of success purely fat loss (because clearly by your profile pic, you have achieved that)?? Because that's the point I'm getting at, is that fat loss isn't the whole story of health. Now, if you feel better overall doing what you are doing now and a primal way of eating just didn't agree with you, well, you can't argue with that and everyone's different.
I'm just arguing that as a general trend (not towards you specifically) I'm not sure why it is so taboo to suggest that laying off junk may be a good idea for health given what's at stake... and given that patients cannot see what is inside them, regardless of how they feel or how they look on the outside. The difference can be quite dramatic.
When I tried paleo (3 yrs), physically, I felt no different. The only thing that changed was my cholesterol went up (total, HDL and LDL). Cholesterol ratios were the same so I was not all that concerned. One thing of note that did happen to me was my eating became a bit dis-ordered. I was developing a bit of orthorexia...
I did paleo for a while too, and also felt no different. I liked it fine, but didn't stick with it since I didn't see the point. What I don't think is that I ate better (from a health or nutrition POV) when doing paleo.
What I think is the big reason paleo works for some is that it provides a reason, an ideology, even, that people who otherwise struggle with motivation to stick to a healthful diet can use. For some either thinking there's a huge difference between eating paleo or not, or feeling virtuous because they are eating "clean" or feeling all manly and caveman like or something gives them an added reason.
I get that, I think that's common for lots of diets that work for people (see, e.g., Matt Fitzgerald's Diet Cults). It's just annoying when they then assume that everyone needs that story or confuse the story with the truth (I am on the side of GOOD, because the EVIL FOLKS (CEOs, I guess) would disapprove of how I eat. It's cool, but about as ridiculous as me feeling like I'm doing some good and fighting against things that I'm upset about by spending 10 minutes on the L retweeting and liking various posts on Twitter.
Excellent book
2 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »
What? That's your slam dunk? Your claim is worthless unless you are willing, or able to show us those said scans and all the context of each patient (diet and lifestyle) that goes with them...
No wasn't meant to be a slam dunk, wham bham thank you ma'am, end of story, and although it was one line, it wasn't meant to be a one liner. Just the most powerful truth as I see it with my own eyes.
But with respect to the info I have at my disposal, it is by far the most powerful demonstration to me. But of course, it has to be limited to just me. Or else privacy laws would have me incarcerated!
So, yes, to you my claim is in fact worthless, unless you are willing to take a leap of faith. Not sure why it is such a huge leap of faith though. You already believe that in general eating less is a good thing, and you seem to believe in the concept that certain foods provide value from a nutrition standpoint. I'm just not sure why it is such a massive woo-like crazymaking stretch to also consider that most foods created with heavy artificial influence actually can be harmful. And there's really nothing to lose by giving up certain foods except taste... and that taste actually turns from positive to negative once the food is eliminated for a period of time. The only thing in my mind (I guess I have to fill in the blanks) to explain this reluctance to consider this concept is that there is an emotional or neurochemical connection/attachment (or perhaps dependence) on having these foods around to warrant a denial to even consider that they may not be compatible with our physiology.
And yes, we cna put together a patient's history with their scan findings, which are NOT subtle.
You assume I have not tried this already while coming to my own conclusion...
No, I think I have read before that you did try way the of eating that I currently do. Or maybe another poster said that about you, I'm not sure.
But I have to ask... was your barometer of success purely fat loss (because clearly by your profile pic, you have achieved that)?? Because that's the point I'm getting at, is that fat loss isn't the whole story of health. Now, if you feel better overall doing what you are doing now and a primal way of eating just didn't agree with you, well, you can't argue with that and everyone's different.
I'm just arguing that as a general trend (not towards you specifically) I'm not sure why it is so taboo to suggest that laying off junk may be a good idea for health given what's at stake... and given that patients cannot see what is inside them, regardless of how they feel or how they look on the outside. The difference can be quite dramatic.
Former paleo eater here too.
I did it before primal was even a thing.
I did it before Loren Cordain was even a thing!
I no longer eat meat.
To answer the question you asked the other poster, I find the benefits of eating the way I eat now to be more in my overall attitude around food.
I didn't have a healthy mindset when I was focused on specific foods and demonizing them.
I'm of the mind that people should strive for nutrient density in their diets, and I feel best when I do this. I'm also of the mind that no harm is going to befall me if I keep in mind context and dosage when incorporating foods with less nutrient density. Overall dietary satisfaction is important too.
I see no need to remove huge categories of food from my diet beyond what I already need to (I have celiac disease). I do see the need to eat the majority of my diet in nutritious foods, but I don't see any need to be a worry wart about every last calorie either. A few cookies here and there or a few chocolate chips in my yogurt aren't going to lead me to an early grave.
I have further issues with the whole notion of food as medicine that are philosophical which could be a whole other thread. There are shades of victim blaming in your posts here (hey, your patients could have had better scans if they just ate better, amirite) that I find quite troubling. You, as a medical professional, should refrain from judgement in such matters.7 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »3 points:
1. Some people state that CICO is a law of physics. Technically, the first law of thermodynamics is a law of physics, and a calorie is simply a unit of measurement of raising 1 g of water through 1 degree C IN A BOMB CALORIMETER. We as humans are each a complex biological system, not a bomb calorimeter. While being aware of a general sense of how much one eats is probably a good thing common sense wise, being dogmatic about a bomb calorimeter law for human fat loss is ignoring the complexity of a biological system. We should be looking for laws of BIOLOGY, not laws of physics to guide us.
2. Just a general pattern I have noticed.. again, not a hard and fast rule but a general pattern. Those who shout "it's all about CICO" really seem to like their junk food (although many do include whole foods), and really seem to want to keep junk food in the mix. To my eye, I do wonder if CICO is a fantastic marketing scheme for big food to give people "permission" to keep that junk food hanging around (one would naturally be all inclusive if instructed that quantity trumps quality).
3. I also notice that the "it's all about CICO" folk do tend to exhibit disproportionately negative emotional responses at the mention of "clean eating" or "whole food diets" or the word "paleo". Or at the very least, there will be a lot of sarcasm/hostility/derision in the tone of responses. I don't know why this is. If one is confident in their method, they usually react peacefully to alternative suggestions. I do understand that food is an emotional topic, but I don't see the converse scenario nearly as much (a "clean eater" getting hostile at the suggestion of CICO/everything in moderation). But that could just be my observation.
Now, there certainly are exceptions to my point number 2, as several forum members do say that they like to watch what they eat in addition to how much, but like I said I just noticed this general trend....
1. Both CICO and the first law of thermo are applications of the law of conservation of energy. The complexity of the system has no influence on the underlying laws of physics. Everything that exists in the universe obeys these laws, including all organic matter. Please feel free to rebut by providing an example of a biological system that does not obey the laws of physics (this is a rhetorical request, please do not put a lot of effort into searching for such an example). As a trained and experienced scientist, yes, I am dogmatic about the laws of physics. Note that the laws of physics do not make any statements about your health. Developing a better understanding of biochemistry and nutrition is great, but you will not find any magic loopholes hiding in there that invalidate fundamental physics.
2. I disagree with your conclusion. I observe that the most vocal proponents of CICO are often the most educated and accomplished in their fitness and nutrition goals. They are the most likely to recommend the same advice you would get from a registered dietitian. If you are going to state that CICO is a marketing conspiracy, at least provide some evidence.
3. It is very difficult to assess emotion through text. What is my emotional state right now? There is always a lot of sarcasm/hostility/derision in all Internet forums, whatever the topic is. That is just humans being human. It is not a coincidence that you perceive favorable traits in those who agree with your opinions.geneticexpectations wrote: »Ok. I'll reword the question.
WHO DO CEO's of BIG FOOD LIKE BETTER TO MAKE THEIR BUSINESS PLAN WORK???
People who think some foods are healthy and other foods are not?
or
People who think food is food
?????
Not sure where you live, but in my country the marketing of large food companies has always directly addressed current public opinion, whether that be low-fat, gluten-free, no added sugar, or whatever the trend du jour happens to be. Yesterday I saw a Panera ad that stated that their food is 100% clean, whatever that is supposed to mean. Fast food chains have been increasingly adopting "healthy" marketing bulletpoints for many years now.
1. What I was saying is that law or no law, results trump all. Of course I had to take physics and biochem etc as well, and I appreciate the principles. But when application of these "black box" principles fails most patients, you don't be stubborn as a professional and keep insisting that method. I do what works and do what is sustainable. And yes, sometimes, that is pure CICO if that's the only way the results happen. But often times, no it's not. But overall if what works differs from equations that people in labcoats are pouring over in some dark corner of an academic facility, oh well.
2. I didn't state CICO was a conspiracy. In my exact words, which you quoted, I started the sentence off with "To my eye". And in my practice, advice from registered dieticians is mostly what screws up the health and nutrition of patients and sends them to our office in the first place, because those dieticians just promote the popular "guidelines", which are atrociously bad. Being on par with registered dieticians in our jurisdiction is not an endorsement. It is an indictment.
3. To clarify: Firstly, the emotional responses I was describing are not just limited to the internet. Secondly, with respect to those who share my opinions, I do not observe how they are towards me, but towards those whose opinions differ from them.
1. What you are talking about now is adherence tactics, which is a very different topic than physical laws. What "works" is physically forcing a person to adhere to an energy balance. Aside from that, it is more of a crapshoot as to what strategies any given individual will comply with. You can give people knowledge and potential implementation strategies based on statistical success rates, but the rest is up to the individual. If you can find an adherence tactic that produces above average compliance results, then there is no doubt that you can make a lot of money selling that idea.
2. RDs are the best and most consistent nutrition experts that we have on a formal level. Barring an individual specific pathology, your patients are not actually following their RDs advice if they are experiencing declining health related to diet. Can you give an example of the atrociously bad guidelines that are official RD policy?
3. In-group favoritism is a cognitive bias that exists in the physical world as well as online. You clearly have a position, so how did you disentangle your own bias from your perception?
1. Sure, no issue with what you wrote wrt weight loss. We also focus on health, and are not a weight loss clinic, just a hospital. So maybe my answer was more tailored to that line of thought. And your last line explains reactionary skepticism when anything contrary to conventional wisdom comes up.
2. Yes. Most consistent. Consistently bad. Every one I have seen just parrots their countries national recommended guidelines. And all of the guidelines I have seen are anything but evidence based. They are completely arbitrary garbage. If you know one that dispenses advice in line with the evidence, yes I'd be up for meeting them and maybe my sample size has been horrible. I have nothing against dieticians really, but rather how they are taught. The same goes for physicians. We were taught along the same lines, and physicians who have kept their heads in the sand are just as consistently bad when it comes to lifestyle advice.
3. Perhaps you are right. Perhaps not. What you say is certainly grounded and balanced. But all I know is the training of dealing with "CICO personalities" on this forum has translated into me navigating the physical world with them a hell of a lot better. That has to say something.1 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »It's odd as I have never noticed number 2 a single time in these boards...
Maybe I worded it badly. Let me try again. I seem to notice on these boards that many (not all, but many) who claim "it's all about CICO" seem to use this as justification to be able to include any food that can be purchased at a store within their diets.
I don't understand what's wrong with this. You can certainly get in your macros and micros eating any food that can be purchased at a store, it's not necessary to eat "clean", or remove "junk food" (whatever those words even mean) in order to lose weight and stay healthy. This argument continues to baffle me - it's as though people are saying if you eat "processed" food (again whatever that means) all the nutrients are sucked out of it.
Sounds more like someone needs justification on why not to eat it rather than the folks who apparently understand there is nothing wrong with any foods and have no reason to justify eating it, no?
ooooo zing!
Then..... why are you here?
Perhaps @Hornsby is here to monitor his cut or bulk cycles? Because I somehow don't think he just woke up one morning with a physique as incredible as his is.
Not what I was getting at. He was simply flipping the script (which is an emotional response as I outlined in point 3... any emotional behaviour is one in which you probably wouldn't do with a colleague), so I was playing flip the script to point that out.
Then let me flip your question around on you:
Since it appears you don't buy into the CICO premise, why are *you* here on a website that, by design, is based around CICO and calorie counting?
I have benefitted tremendously from being here. One of the biggest obstacles to patient care is... patients. (with respect to weight loss AND health... not just weight loss). Well, more specifically, their outlook and attitudes.
As soon as we're able to educate them and get them on the right track, they get success. But to do that we have to break down their attitude and psychological barriers.
The toughest type of personality we have found in the clinic seem to have the "it's all about the CICO" view point as well. As soon as we can break down the personality that comes with that barrier, we get somewhere, but sometimes we can't get through that barrier.
So on this forum I actually get a high concentration of difficult people to deal with... and get lots of insight into how their minds work. This is actually better than real world training. My success rate in the real world has definitely gone up with my experience here.
Now, certainly not everyone here is a jerk, but wow, on the whole, this is like a training bootcamp!
Oh, so wait... they're compliant with diet and weight loss and the biggest problem is the food they eat?
That's very different than what my practitioner told me she experiences in the practice I go to. None of her patients will lose weight in the first place.
Consider yourself lucky your patients will lose weight and greatly decrease their risks for a multitude of diseases!3 -
Same for me...GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »To answer the question you asked the other poster, I find the benefits of eating the way I eat now to be more in my overall attitude around food.
Same for me...GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I didn't have a healthy mindset when I was focused on specific foods and demonizing them.
100%...GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I'm of the mind that people should strive for nutrient density in their diets, and I feel best when I do this. I'm also of the mind that no harm is going to befall me if I keep in mind context and dosage when incorporating foods with less nutrient density. Overall dietary satisfaction is important too.
100%...GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I see no need to remove huge categories of food from my diet beyond what I already need to (I have celiac disease). I do see the need to eat the majority of my diet in nutritious foods, but I don't see any need to be a worry wart about every last calorie either. A few cookies here and there or a few chocolate chips in my yogurt aren't going to lead me to an early grave.
5 -
I also believe that too much emphasis is put on food for overall health and not enough on physical activity...5
-
+1crzycatlady1 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »
What? That's your slam dunk? Your claim is worthless unless you are willing, or able to show us those said scans and all the context of each patient (diet and lifestyle) that goes with them...
No wasn't meant to be a slam dunk, wham bham thank you ma'am, end of story, and although it was one line, it wasn't meant to be a one liner. Just the most powerful truth as I see it with my own eyes.
But with respect to the info I have at my disposal, it is by far the most powerful demonstration to me. But of course, it has to be limited to just me. Or else privacy laws would have me incarcerated!
So, yes, to you my claim is in fact worthless, unless you are willing to take a leap of faith. Not sure why it is such a huge leap of faith though. You already believe that in general eating less is a good thing, and you seem to believe in the concept that certain foods provide value from a nutrition standpoint. I'm just not sure why it is such a massive woo-like crazymaking stretch to also consider that most foods created with heavy artificial influence actually can be harmful. And there's really nothing to lose by giving up certain foods except taste... and that taste actually turns from positive to negative once the food is eliminated for a period of time. The only thing in my mind (I guess I have to fill in the blanks) to explain this reluctance to consider this concept is that there is an emotional or neurochemical connection/attachment (or perhaps dependence) on having these foods around to warrant a denial to even consider that they may not be compatible with our physiology.
And yes, we cna put together a patient's history with their scan findings, which are NOT subtle.
You assume I have not tried this already while coming to my own conclusion...
No, I think I have read before that you did try way the of eating that I currently do. Or maybe another poster said that about you, I'm not sure.
But I have to ask... was your barometer of success purely fat loss (because clearly by your profile pic, you have achieved that)?? Because that's the point I'm getting at, is that fat loss isn't the whole story of health. Now, if you feel better overall doing what you are doing now and a primal way of eating just didn't agree with you, well, you can't argue with that and everyone's different.
I'm just arguing that as a general trend (not towards you specifically) I'm not sure why it is so taboo to suggest that laying off junk may be a good idea for health given what's at stake... and given that patients cannot see what is inside them, regardless of how they feel or how they look on the outside. The difference can be quite dramatic.
When I tried paleo (3 yrs), physically, I felt no different. The only thing that changed was my cholesterol went up (total, HDL and LDL). Cholesterol ratios were the same so I was not all that concerned. One thing of note that did happen to me was my eating became a bit dis-ordered. I was developing a bit of orthorexia...
I did paleo for a while too, and also felt no different. I liked it fine, but didn't stick with it since I didn't see the point. What I don't think is that I ate better (from a health or nutrition POV) when doing paleo.
What I think is the big reason paleo works for some is that it provides a reason, an ideology, even, that people who otherwise struggle with motivation to stick to a healthful diet can use. For some either thinking there's a huge difference between eating paleo or not, or feeling virtuous because they are eating "clean" or feeling all manly and caveman like or something gives them an added reason.
I get that, I think that's common for lots of diets that work for people (see, e.g., Matt Fitzgerald's Diet Cults). It's just annoying when they then assume that everyone needs that story or confuse the story with the truth (I am on the side of GOOD, because the EVIL FOLKS (CEOs, I guess) would disapprove of how I eat. It's cool, but about as ridiculous as me feeling like I'm doing some good and fighting against things that I'm upset about by spending 10 minutes on the L retweeting and liking various posts on Twitter.
Excellent book
1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »It's odd as I have never noticed number 2 a single time in these boards...
Maybe I worded it badly. Let me try again. I seem to notice on these boards that many (not all, but many) who claim "it's all about CICO" seem to use this as justification to be able to include any food that can be purchased at a store within their diets.
I don't understand what's wrong with this. You can certainly get in your macros and micros eating any food that can be purchased at a store, it's not necessary to eat "clean", or remove "junk food" (whatever those words even mean) in order to lose weight and stay healthy. This argument continues to baffle me - it's as though people are saying if you eat "processed" food (again whatever that means) all the nutrients are sucked out of it.
Sounds more like someone needs justification on why not to eat it rather than the folks who apparently understand there is nothing wrong with any foods and have no reason to justify eating it, no?
ooooo zing!
Then..... why are you here?
Perhaps @Hornsby is here to monitor his cut or bulk cycles? Because I somehow don't think he just woke up one morning with a physique as incredible as his is.
Not what I was getting at. He was simply flipping the script (which is an emotional response as I outlined in point 3... any emotional behaviour is one in which you probably wouldn't do with a colleague), so I was playing flip the script to point that out.
Then let me flip your question around on you:
Since it appears you don't buy into the CICO premise, why are *you* here on a website that, by design, is based around CICO and calorie counting?
I have benefitted tremendously from being here. One of the biggest obstacles to patient care is... patients. (with respect to weight loss AND health... not just weight loss). Well, more specifically, their outlook and attitudes.
As soon as we're able to educate them and get them on the right track, they get success. But to do that we have to break down their attitude and psychological barriers.
The toughest type of personality we have found in the clinic seem to have the "it's all about the CICO" view point as well. As soon as we can break down the personality that comes with that barrier, we get somewhere, but sometimes we can't get through that barrier.
So on this forum I actually get a high concentration of difficult people to deal with... and get lots of insight into how their minds work. This is actually better than real world training. My success rate in the real world has definitely gone up with my experience here.
Now, certainly not everyone here is a jerk, but wow, on the whole, this is like a training bootcamp!
Oh, so wait... they're compliant with diet and weight loss and the biggest problem is the food they eat?
That's very different than what my practitioner told me she experiences in the practice I go to. None of her patients will lose weight in the first place.
Consider yourself lucky your patients will lose weight and greatly decrease their risks for a multitude of diseases!
No, they are most often unsuccessful with weight loss AND management of chronic disease when they get seen. Medical train wrecks. However, even much of the healthy looking minority who get seen for random things have a surprising amount of stuff going on on the inside (usually early atherosclerosis, bowel malabsorption pattern, stones, fatty liver). Overall though it's just a typical hospital patient population wise.1 -
This content has been removed.
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »
What? That's your slam dunk? Your claim is worthless unless you are willing, or able to show us those said scans and all the context of each patient (diet and lifestyle) that goes with them...
No wasn't meant to be a slam dunk, wham bham thank you ma'am, end of story, and although it was one line, it wasn't meant to be a one liner. Just the most powerful truth as I see it with my own eyes.
But with respect to the info I have at my disposal, it is by far the most powerful demonstration to me. But of course, it has to be limited to just me. Or else privacy laws would have me incarcerated!
So, yes, to you my claim is in fact worthless, unless you are willing to take a leap of faith. Not sure why it is such a huge leap of faith though. You already believe that in general eating less is a good thing, and you seem to believe in the concept that certain foods provide value from a nutrition standpoint. I'm just not sure why it is such a massive woo-like crazymaking stretch to also consider that most foods created with heavy artificial influence actually can be harmful. And there's really nothing to lose by giving up certain foods except taste... and that taste actually turns from positive to negative once the food is eliminated for a period of time. The only thing in my mind (I guess I have to fill in the blanks) to explain this reluctance to consider this concept is that there is an emotional or neurochemical connection/attachment (or perhaps dependence) on having these foods around to warrant a denial to even consider that they may not be compatible with our physiology.
And yes, we cna put together a patient's history with their scan findings, which are NOT subtle.
You assume I have not tried this already while coming to my own conclusion...
No, I think I have read before that you did try way the of eating that I currently do. Or maybe another poster said that about you, I'm not sure.
But I have to ask... was your barometer of success purely fat loss (because clearly by your profile pic, you have achieved that)?? Because that's the point I'm getting at, is that fat loss isn't the whole story of health. Now, if you feel better overall doing what you are doing now and a primal way of eating just didn't agree with you, well, you can't argue with that and everyone's different.
I'm just arguing that as a general trend (not towards you specifically) I'm not sure why it is so taboo to suggest that laying off junk may be a good idea for health given what's at stake... and given that patients cannot see what is inside them, regardless of how they feel or how they look on the outside. The difference can be quite dramatic.
Former paleo eater here too.
I did it before primal was even a thing.
I did it before Loren Cordain was even a thing!
I no longer eat meat.
To answer the question you asked the other poster, I find the benefits of eating the way I eat now to be more in my overall attitude around food.
I didn't have a healthy mindset when I was focused on specific foods and demonizing them.
I'm of the mind that people should strive for nutrient density in their diets, and I feel best when I do this. I'm also of the mind that no harm is going to befall me if I keep in mind context and dosage when incorporating foods with less nutrient density. Overall dietary satisfaction is important too.
I see no need to remove huge categories of food from my diet beyond what I already need to (I have celiac disease). I do see the need to eat the majority of my diet in nutritious foods, but I don't see any need to be a worry wart about every last calorie either. A few cookies here and there or a few chocolate chips in my yogurt aren't going to lead me to an early grave.
I have further issues with the whole notion of food as medicine that are philosophical which could be a whole other thread. There are shades of victim blaming in your posts here (hey, your patients could have had better scans if they just ate better, amirite) that I find quite troubling. You, as a medical professional, should refrain from judgement in such matters.
It's pieces of writing like this last paragraph that have definitely given me a heads up on the types of personalities that employ "emotional reasoning", ie writing their own script of what is going on around them, establishing it as fact, and then behaving based on that script. Getting exposed to this over the years has given me a huge heads up in dealing with difficult individuals, more in life than at work actually.1 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »That's cool. I understand and accept that there is a difference in perception of what food means to each of us.
Let me ask another hopefully provocative question - and this is in the light that I am a quality over quantity guy, ie, I do "primal" dieting sticking to whole foods, buy all my meats pastured/grassfed from individual farmers etc.
WHO DO THE CEO's OF BIG FOOD LIKE BETTER?
(ie, the people who make billions$$$$ off of non-whole foods, not like the farmers who I buy from who just get by).
Me
or
You (Referring to the people who responded to my recent post).
??????
Honest question, do you feel you are somehow morally superior to eating from local farmers and pastured/grassfed meats? If we go down this route, do you also suggest non GMO organic as well? Because not all of us have 2-3x the budget to afford that, not the want to. Nor do we all have the ability to obtain those foods easily. And I am certainly not driving an hour or two just to get that kind of foods. Luckily, my local grocery stores source locally grown/raised foods. So at the same time, I am supporting both a large business and a local business.
Also, just because I fully support big business, why would it mean that I automatically eat crap food? Do I incorporate treats.. absolutely. But it's not a large part of my calories and I still get more whole foods than most.6 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »That's cool. I understand and accept that there is a difference in perception of what food means to each of us.
Let me ask another hopefully provocative question - and this is in the light that I am a quality over quantity guy, ie, I do "primal" dieting sticking to whole foods, buy all my meats pastured/grassfed from individual farmers etc.
WHO DO THE CEO's OF BIG FOOD LIKE BETTER?
(ie, the people who make billions$$$$ off of non-whole foods, not like the farmers who I buy from who just get by).
Me
or
You (Referring to the people who responded to my recent post).
??????
Honest question, do you feel you are somehow morally superior to eating from local farmers and pastured/grassfed meats? If we go down this route, do you also suggest non GMO organic as well? Because not all of us have 2-3x the budget to afford that, not the want to. Nor do we all have the ability to obtain those foods easily. And I am certainly not driving an hour or two just to get that kind of foods. Luckily, my local grocery stores source locally grown/raised foods. So at the same time, I am supporting both a large business and a local business.
Also, just because I fully support big business, why would it mean that I automatically eat crap food? Do I incorporate treats.. absolutely. But it's not a large part of my calories and I still get more whole foods than most.
No I don't feel that I am morally superior. I was using my stance as a counter example to "the CICO" from the eyes of big business. Apologies if it came across as that way.
We don't suggest any of these things because of what you said, even if we can afford them ourselves. Food is a spectrum of choices and some are better choices than others, . Some are also not accessible to certain individuals due to cost and geography, so those obviously must be taken into account. But even then, all individuals do have choices that ARE accessible. We do educate on the spectrum of food choices to help someone make better food choices within the portions of the spectrum that are available to them.
That's pretty awesome that your grocery stores source those things. Great that you eat a lot of whole foods.
I'm not unsupportive of big business, I'm just unsupportive of big pharma and big food in general.2 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »That's cool. I understand and accept that there is a difference in perception of what food means to each of us.
Let me ask another hopefully provocative question - and this is in the light that I am a quality over quantity guy, ie, I do "primal" dieting sticking to whole foods, buy all my meats pastured/grassfed from individual farmers etc.
WHO DO THE CEO's OF BIG FOOD LIKE BETTER?
(ie, the people who make billions$$$$ off of non-whole foods, not like the farmers who I buy from who just get by).
Me
or
You (Referring to the people who responded to my recent post).
??????
Honest question, do you feel you are somehow morally superior to eating from local farmers and pastured/grassfed meats? If we go down this route, do you also suggest non GMO organic as well? Because not all of us have 2-3x the budget to afford that, not the want to. Nor do we all have the ability to obtain those foods easily. And I am certainly not driving an hour or two just to get that kind of foods. Luckily, my local grocery stores source locally grown/raised foods. So at the same time, I am supporting both a large business and a local business.
Also, just because I fully support big business, why would it mean that I automatically eat crap food? Do I incorporate treats.. absolutely. But it's not a large part of my calories and I still get more whole foods than most.
Yeah, I wonder what geneticexpectations weekly grocery budget is, and for how many people that covers. Pretty sure my reality is not his reality though
1 -
...never mind...2
-
geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »That's cool. I understand and accept that there is a difference in perception of what food means to each of us.
Let me ask another hopefully provocative question - and this is in the light that I am a quality over quantity guy, ie, I do "primal" dieting sticking to whole foods, buy all my meats pastured/grassfed from individual farmers etc.
WHO DO THE CEO's OF BIG FOOD LIKE BETTER?
(ie, the people who make billions$$$$ off of non-whole foods, not like the farmers who I buy from who just get by).
Me
or
You (Referring to the people who responded to my recent post).
??????
Honest question, do you feel you are somehow morally superior to eating from local farmers and pastured/grassfed meats? If we go down this route, do you also suggest non GMO organic as well? Because not all of us have 2-3x the budget to afford that, not the want to. Nor do we all have the ability to obtain those foods easily. And I am certainly not driving an hour or two just to get that kind of foods. Luckily, my local grocery stores source locally grown/raised foods. So at the same time, I am supporting both a large business and a local business.
Also, just because I fully support big business, why would it mean that I automatically eat crap food? Do I incorporate treats.. absolutely. But it's not a large part of my calories and I still get more whole foods than most.
No I don't feel that I am morally superior. I was using my stance as a counter example to "the CICO" from the eyes of big business. Apologies if it came across as that way.
We don't suggest any of these things because of what you said, even if we can afford them ourselves. Food is a spectrum of choices and some are better choices than others, . Some are also not accessible to certain individuals due to cost and geography, so those obviously must be taken into account. But even then, all individuals do have choices that ARE accessible. We do educate on the spectrum of food choices to help someone make better food choices within the portions of the spectrum that are available to them.
That's pretty awesome that your grocery stores source those things. Great that you eat a lot of whole foods.
I'm not unsupportive of big business, I'm just unsupportive of big pharma and big food in general.
Sorry, but I find that sad. What big pharma and big food has accomplished has been remarkable. Without the billions invested by these entities, our society would never be what it is today. They have eradicated a lot of diseases, improve conditions that would never be controlled without medicine and been able to produce lots of foods for millions. And without them, most of our scientific break through's would never have occurred due to lack of funding.
And don't get me wrong, there has also been cooperate greed, and I get that, but without those entities, my wife would be dead and so would most of her family.13 -
crzycatlady1 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »That's cool. I understand and accept that there is a difference in perception of what food means to each of us.
Let me ask another hopefully provocative question - and this is in the light that I am a quality over quantity guy, ie, I do "primal" dieting sticking to whole foods, buy all my meats pastured/grassfed from individual farmers etc.
WHO DO THE CEO's OF BIG FOOD LIKE BETTER?
(ie, the people who make billions$$$$ off of non-whole foods, not like the farmers who I buy from who just get by).
Me
or
You (Referring to the people who responded to my recent post).
??????
Honest question, do you feel you are somehow morally superior to eating from local farmers and pastured/grassfed meats? If we go down this route, do you also suggest non GMO organic as well? Because not all of us have 2-3x the budget to afford that, not the want to. Nor do we all have the ability to obtain those foods easily. And I am certainly not driving an hour or two just to get that kind of foods. Luckily, my local grocery stores source locally grown/raised foods. So at the same time, I am supporting both a large business and a local business.
Also, just because I fully support big business, why would it mean that I automatically eat crap food? Do I incorporate treats.. absolutely. But it's not a large part of my calories and I still get more whole foods than most.
Yeah, I wonder what geneticexpectations weekly grocery budget is, and for how many people that covers. Pretty sure my reality is not his reality though
Ok haha, yes, my weekly grocery budget is enormous actually, and it's for the whole family. It would make people's head spin. But it's my thing and I'm doing well for myself now, so why not? Otherwise I'm actually fairly frugal and I save alot.
However, I absolutely do not recommend what I buy to others as I do go over the top, and buying whole foods on the food spectrum is not as expensive as one would think and can for sure be extremely budget friendly. I've got many people to go on whole food diets and they are saving money compared to before. Only the rich ones are spending more, and quite frankly it's because they CAN not because they HAVE TO.
I actually still get good deals (you have to look hard for them though) - I get grassfed beef and grassfed lamb for under 10$ a pound buying from certain farmers directly. I eat a fair bit of organ meats (which are so cheap if everyone ate this McDonald's would probably go out of business)1 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »crzycatlady1 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »That's cool. I understand and accept that there is a difference in perception of what food means to each of us.
Let me ask another hopefully provocative question - and this is in the light that I am a quality over quantity guy, ie, I do "primal" dieting sticking to whole foods, buy all my meats pastured/grassfed from individual farmers etc.
WHO DO THE CEO's OF BIG FOOD LIKE BETTER?
(ie, the people who make billions$$$$ off of non-whole foods, not like the farmers who I buy from who just get by).
Me
or
You (Referring to the people who responded to my recent post).
??????
Honest question, do you feel you are somehow morally superior to eating from local farmers and pastured/grassfed meats? If we go down this route, do you also suggest non GMO organic as well? Because not all of us have 2-3x the budget to afford that, not the want to. Nor do we all have the ability to obtain those foods easily. And I am certainly not driving an hour or two just to get that kind of foods. Luckily, my local grocery stores source locally grown/raised foods. So at the same time, I am supporting both a large business and a local business.
Also, just because I fully support big business, why would it mean that I automatically eat crap food? Do I incorporate treats.. absolutely. But it's not a large part of my calories and I still get more whole foods than most.
Yeah, I wonder what geneticexpectations weekly grocery budget is, and for how many people that covers. Pretty sure my reality is not his reality though
Ok haha, yes, my weekly grocery budget is enormous actually, and it's for the whole family. It would make people's head spin. But it's my thing and I'm doing well for myself now, so why not? Otherwise I'm actually fairly frugal and I save alot.
However, I absolutely do not recommend what I buy to others as I do go over the top, and buying whole foods on the food spectrum is not as expensive as one would think and can for sure be extremely budget friendly. I've got many people to go on whole food diets and they are saving money compared to before. Only the rich ones are spending more, and quite frankly it's because they CAN not because they HAVE TO.
I actually still get good deals (you have to look hard for them though) - I get grassfed beef and grassfed lamb for under 10$ a pound buying from certain farmers directly. I eat a fair bit of organ meats (which are so cheap if everyone ate this McDonald's would probably go out of business)
For my area, grass fed is usually 2-3x more than grain feed. Although, I was able to get ground elk recently (I tried it because I love bison) and OMG, I love it. I just can't justify $9/lb when I get grain fed angus 90/10 for $2.88/lb. Grass fed vs gain fed isn't that substantially better that it will even impact or remotely tough my health.2 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »crzycatlady1 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »That's cool. I understand and accept that there is a difference in perception of what food means to each of us.
Let me ask another hopefully provocative question - and this is in the light that I am a quality over quantity guy, ie, I do "primal" dieting sticking to whole foods, buy all my meats pastured/grassfed from individual farmers etc.
WHO DO THE CEO's OF BIG FOOD LIKE BETTER?
(ie, the people who make billions$$$$ off of non-whole foods, not like the farmers who I buy from who just get by).
Me
or
You (Referring to the people who responded to my recent post).
??????
Honest question, do you feel you are somehow morally superior to eating from local farmers and pastured/grassfed meats? If we go down this route, do you also suggest non GMO organic as well? Because not all of us have 2-3x the budget to afford that, not the want to. Nor do we all have the ability to obtain those foods easily. And I am certainly not driving an hour or two just to get that kind of foods. Luckily, my local grocery stores source locally grown/raised foods. So at the same time, I am supporting both a large business and a local business.
Also, just because I fully support big business, why would it mean that I automatically eat crap food? Do I incorporate treats.. absolutely. But it's not a large part of my calories and I still get more whole foods than most.
Yeah, I wonder what geneticexpectations weekly grocery budget is, and for how many people that covers. Pretty sure my reality is not his reality though
Ok haha, yes, my weekly grocery budget is enormous actually, and it's for the whole family. It would make people's head spin. But it's my thing and I'm doing well for myself now, so why not? Otherwise I'm actually fairly frugal and I save alot.
However, I absolutely do not recommend what I buy to others as I do go over the top, and buying whole foods on the food spectrum is not as expensive as one would think and can for sure be extremely budget friendly. I've got many people to go on whole food diets and they are saving money compared to before. Only the rich ones are spending more, and quite frankly it's because they CAN not because they HAVE TO.
I actually still get good deals (you have to look hard for them though) - I get grassfed beef and grassfed lamb for under 10$ a pound buying from certain farmers directly. I eat a fair bit of organ meats (which are so cheap if everyone ate this McDonald's would probably go out of business)
I have a $100 weekly grocery budget for a family of 5. That also includes non-food items like toilet paper, trash bags, shampoo, razors, feminine hygiene products, cleaning and laundry supplies etc etc.
We also currently eat out once on the weekends (always under $25 and is separate from the grocery budget). We were eating out a bit more than that but we just bought a 147 year old house in February, so really focusing on saving money to put towards renovations We're a one income family and I'm a sahm who homeschools our kiddos.
For what it's worth-I'm another one who did a paleo experiment back in the day. Like J72FIT I also started developing a distorted relationship with food. It also was very cost prohibitive, and at the lowest point I actually stopped paying utility bills on time, just so I could come up with the extra money I needed to buy the 'approved' foods. Really not a good place to be at, and not something I have any interest in ever going back to.
edit: clarification5 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »That's cool. I understand and accept that there is a difference in perception of what food means to each of us.
Let me ask another hopefully provocative question - and this is in the light that I am a quality over quantity guy, ie, I do "primal" dieting sticking to whole foods, buy all my meats pastured/grassfed from individual farmers etc.
WHO DO THE CEO's OF BIG FOOD LIKE BETTER?
(ie, the people who make billions$$$$ off of non-whole foods, not like the farmers who I buy from who just get by).
Me
or
You (Referring to the people who responded to my recent post).
??????
Honest question, do you feel you are somehow morally superior to eating from local farmers and pastured/grassfed meats? If we go down this route, do you also suggest non GMO organic as well? Because not all of us have 2-3x the budget to afford that, not the want to. Nor do we all have the ability to obtain those foods easily. And I am certainly not driving an hour or two just to get that kind of foods. Luckily, my local grocery stores source locally grown/raised foods. So at the same time, I am supporting both a large business and a local business.
Also, just because I fully support big business, why would it mean that I automatically eat crap food? Do I incorporate treats.. absolutely. But it's not a large part of my calories and I still get more whole foods than most.
No I don't feel that I am morally superior. I was using my stance as a counter example to "the CICO" from the eyes of big business. Apologies if it came across as that way.
We don't suggest any of these things because of what you said, even if we can afford them ourselves. Food is a spectrum of choices and some are better choices than others, . Some are also not accessible to certain individuals due to cost and geography, so those obviously must be taken into account. But even then, all individuals do have choices that ARE accessible. We do educate on the spectrum of food choices to help someone make better food choices within the portions of the spectrum that are available to them.
That's pretty awesome that your grocery stores source those things. Great that you eat a lot of whole foods.
I'm not unsupportive of big business, I'm just unsupportive of big pharma and big food in general.
Sorry, but I find that sad. What big pharma and big food has accomplished has been remarkable. Without the billions invested by these entities, our society would never be what it is today. They have eradicated a lot of diseases, improve conditions that would never be controlled without medicine and been able to produce lots of foods for millions. And without them, most of our scientific break through's would never have occurred due to lack of funding.
And don't get me wrong, there has also been cooperate greed, and I get that, but without those entities, my wife would be dead and so would most of her family.
I'm sorry to hear about your wife and her family's close call. That must have been rough.
More physicians are now airing on the side of trying to prevent the big ticket "western" diseases from happening in the first place, but is that in the best interest of drug companies?
From the sounds of your post, it seems like there is a very very strong support for big pharma and big food on your part, and I am getting the sense that that is shared among many of the forum members who have a similar line of thinking. This may explain a lot of what I see now that I think about it.
I'm not directing this at you, I'm just thinking out loud... If the line of thinking is that weight loss is the focus, and that CICO is the (only) law that governs it, and that no food can be bad for you and are just vehicles for various macro and micro nutrients, food is food, and big pharma and big food are seen as positively instrumental entities in our society (even saviours).... no wonder many have emotionally negative reactions and outright denial to the things I have been posting. It's certainly another level of challenge to breakthrough to the masses.1 -
crzycatlady1 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »crzycatlady1 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »That's cool. I understand and accept that there is a difference in perception of what food means to each of us.
Let me ask another hopefully provocative question - and this is in the light that I am a quality over quantity guy, ie, I do "primal" dieting sticking to whole foods, buy all my meats pastured/grassfed from individual farmers etc.
WHO DO THE CEO's OF BIG FOOD LIKE BETTER?
(ie, the people who make billions$$$$ off of non-whole foods, not like the farmers who I buy from who just get by).
Me
or
You (Referring to the people who responded to my recent post).
??????
Honest question, do you feel you are somehow morally superior to eating from local farmers and pastured/grassfed meats? If we go down this route, do you also suggest non GMO organic as well? Because not all of us have 2-3x the budget to afford that, not the want to. Nor do we all have the ability to obtain those foods easily. And I am certainly not driving an hour or two just to get that kind of foods. Luckily, my local grocery stores source locally grown/raised foods. So at the same time, I am supporting both a large business and a local business.
Also, just because I fully support big business, why would it mean that I automatically eat crap food? Do I incorporate treats.. absolutely. But it's not a large part of my calories and I still get more whole foods than most.
Yeah, I wonder what geneticexpectations weekly grocery budget is, and for how many people that covers. Pretty sure my reality is not his reality though
Ok haha, yes, my weekly grocery budget is enormous actually, and it's for the whole family. It would make people's head spin. But it's my thing and I'm doing well for myself now, so why not? Otherwise I'm actually fairly frugal and I save alot.
However, I absolutely do not recommend what I buy to others as I do go over the top, and buying whole foods on the food spectrum is not as expensive as one would think and can for sure be extremely budget friendly. I've got many people to go on whole food diets and they are saving money compared to before. Only the rich ones are spending more, and quite frankly it's because they CAN not because they HAVE TO.
I actually still get good deals (you have to look hard for them though) - I get grassfed beef and grassfed lamb for under 10$ a pound buying from certain farmers directly. I eat a fair bit of organ meats (which are so cheap if everyone ate this McDonald's would probably go out of business)
I have a $100 weekly grocery budget for a family of 5. That also includes non-food items like toilet paper, trash bags, shampoo, razors, feminine hygiene products, cleaning and laundry supplies etc etc.
We also currently eat out once on the weekends (always under $25 and is separate from the grocery budget). We were eating out a bit more than that but we just bought a 147 year old house in February, so really focusing on saving money to put towards renovations We're a one income family and I'm a sahm who homeschools our kiddos.
For what it's worth-I'm another one who did a paleo experiment back in the day. Like J72FIT I also started developing a distorted relationship with food. It also was very cost prohibitive, and at the lowest point I actually stopped paying utility bills on time, just so I could come up with the extra money I needed to buy the 'approved' foods. Really not a good place to be at, and not something I have any interest in ever going back to.
edit: clarification
Yes that's tough. I mean, I've successfully navigated somewhat similar situations with people I have given advice to, but for a family of 5, yeah for sure. I'm glad that you escaped the distorted food relationship. For what it's worth, when I give advice, it's always: Don't worry about the best choices, just the best choices that are available to you within your constraints and personal acceptance.2 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »That's cool. I understand and accept that there is a difference in perception of what food means to each of us.
Let me ask another hopefully provocative question - and this is in the light that I am a quality over quantity guy, ie, I do "primal" dieting sticking to whole foods, buy all my meats pastured/grassfed from individual farmers etc.
WHO DO THE CEO's OF BIG FOOD LIKE BETTER?
(ie, the people who make billions$$$$ off of non-whole foods, not like the farmers who I buy from who just get by).
Me
or
You (Referring to the people who responded to my recent post).
??????
Honest question, do you feel you are somehow morally superior to eating from local farmers and pastured/grassfed meats? If we go down this route, do you also suggest non GMO organic as well? Because not all of us have 2-3x the budget to afford that, not the want to. Nor do we all have the ability to obtain those foods easily. And I am certainly not driving an hour or two just to get that kind of foods. Luckily, my local grocery stores source locally grown/raised foods. So at the same time, I am supporting both a large business and a local business.
Also, just because I fully support big business, why would it mean that I automatically eat crap food? Do I incorporate treats.. absolutely. But it's not a large part of my calories and I still get more whole foods than most.
No I don't feel that I am morally superior. I was using my stance as a counter example to "the CICO" from the eyes of big business. Apologies if it came across as that way.
We don't suggest any of these things because of what you said, even if we can afford them ourselves. Food is a spectrum of choices and some are better choices than others, . Some are also not accessible to certain individuals due to cost and geography, so those obviously must be taken into account. But even then, all individuals do have choices that ARE accessible. We do educate on the spectrum of food choices to help someone make better food choices within the portions of the spectrum that are available to them.
That's pretty awesome that your grocery stores source those things. Great that you eat a lot of whole foods.
I'm not unsupportive of big business, I'm just unsupportive of big pharma and big food in general.
Sorry, but I find that sad. What big pharma and big food has accomplished has been remarkable. Without the billions invested by these entities, our society would never be what it is today. They have eradicated a lot of diseases, improve conditions that would never be controlled without medicine and been able to produce lots of foods for millions. And without them, most of our scientific break through's would never have occurred due to lack of funding.
And don't get me wrong, there has also been cooperate greed, and I get that, but without those entities, my wife would be dead and so would most of her family.
I'm sorry to hear about your wife and her family's close call. That must have been rough.
More physicians are now airing on the side of trying to prevent the big ticket "western" diseases from happening in the first place, but is that in the best interest of drug companies?
From the sounds of your post, it seems like there is a very very strong support for big pharma and big food on your part, and I am getting the sense that that is shared among many of the forum members who have a similar line of thinking. This may explain a lot of what I see now that I think about it.
I'm not directing this at you, I'm just thinking out loud... If the line of thinking is that weight loss is the focus, and that CICO is the (only) law that governs it, and that no food can be bad for you and are just vehicles for various macro and micro nutrients, food is food, and big pharma and big food are seen as positively instrumental entities in our society (even saviours).... no wonder many have emotionally negative reactions and outright denial to the things I have been posting. It's certainly another level of challenge to breakthrough to the masses.
If I view food as food and vehicle for macro and micro nutrient delivery...what's wrong with that? Doesn't that just help me meet my macro and micro goals for the day? What else is there to consider? If I am meeting my nutritional goals, why is it bad if I buy and eat Big Food-produced Twinkies?6 -
If I view food as food and vehicle for macro and micro nutrient delivery...what's wrong with that? Doesn't that just help me meet my macro and micro goals for the day? What else is there to consider? If I am meeting my nutritional goals, why is it bad if I buy and eat Big Food-produced Twinkies?
Nothing, a real doctor would agree. @geneticexpectations is not a doctor, and I would bet big money is the help at the hospital, not a doctor.8 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »
What? That's your slam dunk? Your claim is worthless unless you are willing, or able to show us those said scans and all the context of each patient (diet and lifestyle) that goes with them...
No wasn't meant to be a slam dunk, wham bham thank you ma'am, end of story, and although it was one line, it wasn't meant to be a one liner. Just the most powerful truth as I see it with my own eyes.
But with respect to the info I have at my disposal, it is by far the most powerful demonstration to me. But of course, it has to be limited to just me. Or else privacy laws would have me incarcerated!
So, yes, to you my claim is in fact worthless, unless you are willing to take a leap of faith. Not sure why it is such a huge leap of faith though. You already believe that in general eating less is a good thing, and you seem to believe in the concept that certain foods provide value from a nutrition standpoint. I'm just not sure why it is such a massive woo-like crazymaking stretch to also consider that most foods created with heavy artificial influence actually can be harmful. And there's really nothing to lose by giving up certain foods except taste... and that taste actually turns from positive to negative once the food is eliminated for a period of time. The only thing in my mind (I guess I have to fill in the blanks) to explain this reluctance to consider this concept is that there is an emotional or neurochemical connection/attachment (or perhaps dependence) on having these foods around to warrant a denial to even consider that they may not be compatible with our physiology.
And yes, we cna put together a patient's history with their scan findings, which are NOT subtle.
You assume I have not tried this already while coming to my own conclusion...
No, I think I have read before that you did try way the of eating that I currently do. Or maybe another poster said that about you, I'm not sure.
But I have to ask... was your barometer of success purely fat loss (because clearly by your profile pic, you have achieved that)?? Because that's the point I'm getting at, is that fat loss isn't the whole story of health. Now, if you feel better overall doing what you are doing now and a primal way of eating just didn't agree with you, well, you can't argue with that and everyone's different.
I'm just arguing that as a general trend (not towards you specifically) I'm not sure why it is so taboo to suggest that laying off junk may be a good idea for health given what's at stake... and given that patients cannot see what is inside them, regardless of how they feel or how they look on the outside. The difference can be quite dramatic.
Former paleo eater here too.
I did it before primal was even a thing.
I did it before Loren Cordain was even a thing!
I no longer eat meat.
To answer the question you asked the other poster, I find the benefits of eating the way I eat now to be more in my overall attitude around food.
I didn't have a healthy mindset when I was focused on specific foods and demonizing them.
I'm of the mind that people should strive for nutrient density in their diets, and I feel best when I do this. I'm also of the mind that no harm is going to befall me if I keep in mind context and dosage when incorporating foods with less nutrient density. Overall dietary satisfaction is important too.
I see no need to remove huge categories of food from my diet beyond what I already need to (I have celiac disease). I do see the need to eat the majority of my diet in nutritious foods, but I don't see any need to be a worry wart about every last calorie either. A few cookies here and there or a few chocolate chips in my yogurt aren't going to lead me to an early grave.
I have further issues with the whole notion of food as medicine that are philosophical which could be a whole other thread. There are shades of victim blaming in your posts here (hey, your patients could have had better scans if they just ate better, amirite) that I find quite troubling. You, as a medical professional, should refrain from judgement in such matters.
It's pieces of writing like this last paragraph that have definitely given me a heads up on the types of personalities that employ "emotional reasoning", ie writing their own script of what is going on around them, establishing it as fact, and then behaving based on that script. Getting exposed to this over the years has given me a huge heads up in dealing with difficult individuals, more in life than at work actually.
You are presuming that what you state is fact to presume that I am coming from a place of emotion rather than insight into how you're thinking.
What you just said about me says far more about you than it does about me.17 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »That's cool. I understand and accept that there is a difference in perception of what food means to each of us.
Let me ask another hopefully provocative question - and this is in the light that I am a quality over quantity guy, ie, I do "primal" dieting sticking to whole foods, buy all my meats pastured/grassfed from individual farmers etc.
WHO DO THE CEO's OF BIG FOOD LIKE BETTER?
(ie, the people who make billions$$$$ off of non-whole foods, not like the farmers who I buy from who just get by).
Me
or
You (Referring to the people who responded to my recent post).
??????
Honest question, do you feel you are somehow morally superior to eating from local farmers and pastured/grassfed meats? If we go down this route, do you also suggest non GMO organic as well? Because not all of us have 2-3x the budget to afford that, not the want to. Nor do we all have the ability to obtain those foods easily. And I am certainly not driving an hour or two just to get that kind of foods. Luckily, my local grocery stores source locally grown/raised foods. So at the same time, I am supporting both a large business and a local business.
Also, just because I fully support big business, why would it mean that I automatically eat crap food? Do I incorporate treats.. absolutely. But it's not a large part of my calories and I still get more whole foods than most.
No I don't feel that I am morally superior. I was using my stance as a counter example to "the CICO" from the eyes of big business. Apologies if it came across as that way.
We don't suggest any of these things because of what you said, even if we can afford them ourselves. Food is a spectrum of choices and some are better choices than others, . Some are also not accessible to certain individuals due to cost and geography, so those obviously must be taken into account. But even then, all individuals do have choices that ARE accessible. We do educate on the spectrum of food choices to help someone make better food choices within the portions of the spectrum that are available to them.
That's pretty awesome that your grocery stores source those things. Great that you eat a lot of whole foods.
I'm not unsupportive of big business, I'm just unsupportive of big pharma and big food in general.
Sorry, but I find that sad. What big pharma and big food has accomplished has been remarkable. Without the billions invested by these entities, our society would never be what it is today. They have eradicated a lot of diseases, improve conditions that would never be controlled without medicine and been able to produce lots of foods for millions. And without them, most of our scientific break through's would never have occurred due to lack of funding.
And don't get me wrong, there has also been cooperate greed, and I get that, but without those entities, my wife would be dead and so would most of her family.
I'm sorry to hear about your wife and her family's close call. That must have been rough.
More physicians are now airing on the side of trying to prevent the big ticket "western" diseases from happening in the first place, but is that in the best interest of drug companies?
From the sounds of your post, it seems like there is a very very strong support for big pharma and big food on your part, and I am getting the sense that that is shared among many of the forum members who have a similar line of thinking. This may explain a lot of what I see now that I think about it.
I'm not directing this at you, I'm just thinking out loud... If the line of thinking is that weight loss is the focus, and that CICO is the (only) law that governs it, and that no food can be bad for you and are just vehicles for various macro and micro nutrients, food is food, and big pharma and big food are seen as positively instrumental entities in our society (even saviours).... no wonder many have emotionally negative reactions and outright denial to the things I have been posting. It's certainly another level of challenge to breakthrough to the masses.
If I view food as food and vehicle for macro and micro nutrient delivery...what's wrong with that? Doesn't that just help me meet my macro and micro goals for the day? What else is there to consider? If I am meeting my nutritional goals, why is it bad if I buy and eat Big Food-produced Twinkies?
Because big food is the anti-Christ ..the seventh seal is actually a Twinkie that is eaten not broken...12 -
annaskiski wrote: »If I view food as food and vehicle for macro and micro nutrient delivery...what's wrong with that? Doesn't that just help me meet my macro and micro goals for the day? What else is there to consider? If I am meeting my nutritional goals, why is it bad if I buy and eat Big Food-produced Twinkies?
Nothing, a real doctor would agree. @geneticexpectations is not a doctor, and I would bet big money is the help at the hospital, not a doctor.
Good point, one should always be skeptical about the identity of anyone on the internet. So a reasonable way to express that would be "This person may not be a doctor" or "I have doubts that this person is a doctor".
However since there is no way you would know if anyone on the internet is a doctor or not, definitively stating one way or the other is impossible. Statements that are based on impossibility of knowledge absolutely call into question any credibility your comments may carry.
This is another personality trait that I have noticed in a large minority of the "it's all about CICO" crowd. If one is able to definitively state something as fact when there is no possible way they could have knowledge about that fact, it does explain the ease at which one can definitively and conclusively rationalize that a certain frankenfood can't possibly be bad for you.
2 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »3 points:
1. Some people state that CICO is a law of physics. Technically, the first law of thermodynamics is a law of physics, and a calorie is simply a unit of measurement of raising 1 g of water through 1 degree C IN A BOMB CALORIMETER. We as humans are each a complex biological system, not a bomb calorimeter. While being aware of a general sense of how much one eats is probably a good thing common sense wise, being dogmatic about a bomb calorimeter law for human fat loss is ignoring the complexity of a biological system. We should be looking for laws of BIOLOGY, not laws of physics to guide us.
2. Just a general pattern I have noticed.. again, not a hard and fast rule but a general pattern. Those who shout "it's all about CICO" really seem to like their junk food (although many do include whole foods), and really seem to want to keep junk food in the mix. To my eye, I do wonder if CICO is a fantastic marketing scheme for big food to give people "permission" to keep that junk food hanging around (one would naturally be all inclusive if instructed that quantity trumps quality).
3. I also notice that the "it's all about CICO" folk do tend to exhibit disproportionately negative emotional responses at the mention of "clean eating" or "whole food diets" or the word "paleo". Or at the very least, there will be a lot of sarcasm/hostility/derision in the tone of responses. I don't know why this is. If one is confident in their method, they usually react peacefully to alternative suggestions. I do understand that food is an emotional topic, but I don't see the converse scenario nearly as much (a "clean eater" getting hostile at the suggestion of CICO/everything in moderation). But that could just be my observation.
Now, there certainly are exceptions to my point number 2, as several forum members do say that they like to watch what they eat in addition to how much, but like I said I just noticed this general trend....
Going back to this, then will add a bit (having read the whole thread).- Complexity of a system does not change the most fundamental scientific principles that apply. Yes, there is much more to it as a practical matter, but CICO is the foundation.
- N=1: I'm a diehard CICO booster, and encourage people to find a nutritious way of eating (based on micros and macros) that they personally enjoy, because of #1 (especially the "more to it as a practical matter" part).
Personally, my usual way of eating is almost ridiculously poster-child "clean" and "whole foods" and "locavore" and lots of other really absurd terms others have used after looking at my diary or other posts. I don't use any of those silly terms because they're so ill-defined as to be utterly meaningless. (I've never been "paleo" or "primal" because I've been vegetarian since 1974.) - All of us, really? Even those us for whom some of those WOEs are not "alternative methods"? Admittedly, as I said, I do reject those terms as not helpful for communication, since their meaning is so ill-defined, and some use them with a whiff of moral righteousness. That latter, when it shows up, will tend to bring out hostility in others. Oddly, I see what you call the 'converse scenario' ("clean eaters" getting hostile at moderation advocates) fairly often. I think the proportions of A demonizing B, and B demonizing A, are pretty equal, because personality types are similarly distributed across the groups. (As an aside, I also think that assuming all CICO advocates love their junk food can be an example of thinly veiled hostility.)
"Big Food": When I was taking marketing classes in MBA school, pretty much what we were taught (putting it cynically) was "figure out what people really, really want (not what they say they want), give it to them, and market the c**p out of it (if helpful, by posturing as if it's what they say they want, but really don't)" . . . hence the crispy chicken salad, the value menu, the bottomless pop/soda, etc. In finance class, they taught us about profit.
Put these together, you have Big Food, profitably selling us stuff we want, that isn't necessarily good for us.
I don't expect business to be my caring mommy & daddy who look out for me. I'm an adult. They have motives. This is consumer capitalism, and I kinda like capitalism. As long as they don't literally cheat or lie (which they sometimes do), I don't think it's immoral.
Big Pharma: I'm in the "would be dead by now without it" camp (locally advanced stage III breast cancer in 2000, with chemo & all the trimmings). But when the statins question came up in my life, and I was already pre-hypertensive, I tried eating 'better' first (with small, but some benefit), even though I was already eating fairly nutritiously. Then I buckled down & lost a third of my body weight. Now I'm down to a BMI of 21.2, and holding in maintenance for over a year. Cholesterol, triglycerides, blood pressure are all Just Fabulous (and they were rapidly on that track well before I lost the whole 60 pounds - 30 was pretty magical). This makes me believe that quantity is more important than quality, even though n=1.
The reason Calories In < Calories Out doesn't work for most people - based on observation of many people around me who are obese/overweight, who say they want to lose weight - is that they don't really want to do what it takes to implement it. This is true even after they've seen me do it. One person I know has tried it after seeing it work for me . . . and it worked.
Sure, there are a few percentage points of people in the population who have special difficulties applying these principles: Hypothyroidism (oops, not that one, I'm hypothyroid, too) or other medical conditions; older (oops, I'm 61); and . . . I don't know, but I'm willing to believe they're out there. Gotta be single digit percents of the population with special problems. Most of us just don't want to, really. It's not necessarily easy.9 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »I'm not directing this at you, I'm just thinking out loud... If the line of thinking is that weight loss is the focus, and that CICO is the (only) law that governs it, and that no food can be bad for you and are just vehicles for various macro and micro nutrients, food is food, and big pharma and big food are seen as positively instrumental entities in our society (even saviours).... no wonder many have emotionally negative reactions and outright denial to the things I have been posting. It's certainly another level of challenge to breakthrough to the masses.
By losing the extra weight, while still eating grains, sugary foods, processed foods, fast food etc, I improved all my health markers/blood work panels-including normalizing a high/prediabetic glucose number. T2 has has killed several (obese) relatives of mine, and I'm the only one in my family who's stopped the progression of prediabetes. Now I'm successfully maintaining a bmi of around 20, still have consistent, good feedback from my doctor and I still eat grains, sugary foods, processed foods etc. I also eat veggies and fruit, lean meats, eggs, fish etc. My #1 focus continues to be CICO, and then I eat a varied diet of all the foods I enjoy. Food is food
None of my immediate family uses prescriptions or need medications, so no warm, fuzzy feelings towards big pharma over here (besides vaccinations, they get kudos for those ). But, as I posted above-I'm all about inexpensive food so I'm good with big food lol 3 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »That's cool. I understand and accept that there is a difference in perception of what food means to each of us.
Let me ask another hopefully provocative question - and this is in the light that I am a quality over quantity guy, ie, I do "primal" dieting sticking to whole foods, buy all my meats pastured/grassfed from individual farmers etc.
WHO DO THE CEO's OF BIG FOOD LIKE BETTER?
(ie, the people who make billions$$$$ off of non-whole foods, not like the farmers who I buy from who just get by).
Me
or
You (Referring to the people who responded to my recent post).
??????
Honest question, do you feel you are somehow morally superior to eating from local farmers and pastured/grassfed meats? If we go down this route, do you also suggest non GMO organic as well? Because not all of us have 2-3x the budget to afford that, not the want to. Nor do we all have the ability to obtain those foods easily. And I am certainly not driving an hour or two just to get that kind of foods. Luckily, my local grocery stores source locally grown/raised foods. So at the same time, I am supporting both a large business and a local business.
Also, just because I fully support big business, why would it mean that I automatically eat crap food? Do I incorporate treats.. absolutely. But it's not a large part of my calories and I still get more whole foods than most.
No I don't feel that I am morally superior. I was using my stance as a counter example to "the CICO" from the eyes of big business. Apologies if it came across as that way.
We don't suggest any of these things because of what you said, even if we can afford them ourselves. Food is a spectrum of choices and some are better choices than others, . Some are also not accessible to certain individuals due to cost and geography, so those obviously must be taken into account. But even then, all individuals do have choices that ARE accessible. We do educate on the spectrum of food choices to help someone make better food choices within the portions of the spectrum that are available to them.
That's pretty awesome that your grocery stores source those things. Great that you eat a lot of whole foods.
I'm not unsupportive of big business, I'm just unsupportive of big pharma and big food in general.
Sorry, but I find that sad. What big pharma and big food has accomplished has been remarkable. Without the billions invested by these entities, our society would never be what it is today. They have eradicated a lot of diseases, improve conditions that would never be controlled without medicine and been able to produce lots of foods for millions. And without them, most of our scientific break through's would never have occurred due to lack of funding.
And don't get me wrong, there has also been cooperate greed, and I get that, but without those entities, my wife would be dead and so would most of her family.
I'm sorry to hear about your wife and her family's close call. That must have been rough.
More physicians are now airing on the side of trying to prevent the big ticket "western" diseases from happening in the first place, but is that in the best interest of drug companies?
From the sounds of your post, it seems like there is a very very strong support for big pharma and big food on your part, and I am getting the sense that that is shared among many of the forum members who have a similar line of thinking. This may explain a lot of what I see now that I think about it.
I'm not directing this at you, I'm just thinking out loud... If the line of thinking is that weight loss is the focus, and that CICO is the (only) law that governs it, and that no food can be bad for you and are just vehicles for various macro and micro nutrients, food is food, and big pharma and big food are seen as positively instrumental entities in our society (even saviours).... no wonder many have emotionally negative reactions and outright denial to the things I have been posting. It's certainly another level of challenge to breakthrough to the masses.
If I view food as food and vehicle for macro and micro nutrient delivery...what's wrong with that? Doesn't that just help me meet my macro and micro goals for the day? What else is there to consider? If I am meeting my nutritional goals, why is it bad if I buy and eat Big Food-produced Twinkies?
I'm assuming that you are asking the question honestly and I could answer for hours, but it probably won't be well received by the masses here (because nothing I say on this subject is). My short answer is, just because a food is macro or micro nutrient neutral in the context of someone's daily goals does not mean that it doesn't have a widespread deleterious effect. Over a lifetime, even daily small amounts can add up to potentially large cumulative doses. One can argue, if it isn't necessary from a macro and micro N standpoint, why bother? But maybe that's just us and our line of thinking.
Part of my mind has to ask though - has nobody ever tried to convince you that chronic disease could in fact be related to these big food produced twinkies independent of caloric content and macros?1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »
What? That's your slam dunk? Your claim is worthless unless you are willing, or able to show us those said scans and all the context of each patient (diet and lifestyle) that goes with them...
No wasn't meant to be a slam dunk, wham bham thank you ma'am, end of story, and although it was one line, it wasn't meant to be a one liner. Just the most powerful truth as I see it with my own eyes.
But with respect to the info I have at my disposal, it is by far the most powerful demonstration to me. But of course, it has to be limited to just me. Or else privacy laws would have me incarcerated!
So, yes, to you my claim is in fact worthless, unless you are willing to take a leap of faith. Not sure why it is such a huge leap of faith though. You already believe that in general eating less is a good thing, and you seem to believe in the concept that certain foods provide value from a nutrition standpoint. I'm just not sure why it is such a massive woo-like crazymaking stretch to also consider that most foods created with heavy artificial influence actually can be harmful. And there's really nothing to lose by giving up certain foods except taste... and that taste actually turns from positive to negative once the food is eliminated for a period of time. The only thing in my mind (I guess I have to fill in the blanks) to explain this reluctance to consider this concept is that there is an emotional or neurochemical connection/attachment (or perhaps dependence) on having these foods around to warrant a denial to even consider that they may not be compatible with our physiology.
And yes, we cna put together a patient's history with their scan findings, which are NOT subtle.
You assume I have not tried this already while coming to my own conclusion...
No, I think I have read before that you did try way the of eating that I currently do. Or maybe another poster said that about you, I'm not sure.
But I have to ask... was your barometer of success purely fat loss (because clearly by your profile pic, you have achieved that)?? Because that's the point I'm getting at, is that fat loss isn't the whole story of health. Now, if you feel better overall doing what you are doing now and a primal way of eating just didn't agree with you, well, you can't argue with that and everyone's different.
I'm just arguing that as a general trend (not towards you specifically) I'm not sure why it is so taboo to suggest that laying off junk may be a good idea for health given what's at stake... and given that patients cannot see what is inside them, regardless of how they feel or how they look on the outside. The difference can be quite dramatic.
Former paleo eater here too.
I did it before primal was even a thing.
I did it before Loren Cordain was even a thing!
I no longer eat meat.
To answer the question you asked the other poster, I find the benefits of eating the way I eat now to be more in my overall attitude around food.
I didn't have a healthy mindset when I was focused on specific foods and demonizing them.
I'm of the mind that people should strive for nutrient density in their diets, and I feel best when I do this. I'm also of the mind that no harm is going to befall me if I keep in mind context and dosage when incorporating foods with less nutrient density. Overall dietary satisfaction is important too.
I see no need to remove huge categories of food from my diet beyond what I already need to (I have celiac disease). I do see the need to eat the majority of my diet in nutritious foods, but I don't see any need to be a worry wart about every last calorie either. A few cookies here and there or a few chocolate chips in my yogurt aren't going to lead me to an early grave.
I have further issues with the whole notion of food as medicine that are philosophical which could be a whole other thread. There are shades of victim blaming in your posts here (hey, your patients could have had better scans if they just ate better, amirite) that I find quite troubling. You, as a medical professional, should refrain from judgement in such matters.
It's pieces of writing like this last paragraph that have definitely given me a heads up on the types of personalities that employ "emotional reasoning", ie writing their own script of what is going on around them, establishing it as fact, and then behaving based on that script. Getting exposed to this over the years has given me a huge heads up in dealing with difficult individuals, more in life than at work actually.
You are presuming that what you state is fact to presume that I am coming from a place of emotion rather than insight into how you're thinking.
What you just said about me says far more about you than it does about me.
Stating that it is "insight" still has the underlying premise that you believe that you are correct about how I'm thinking, without giving room to verify your hypothesis.
Let me put this another way. When I try to guess what others are thinking I use words like "it seems to me" or, "I get the sense that" or I ASK. You use words such as "You are" and stated that my thought process is one of judgement as if that is fact without asking for verification.
The latter examples are the characteristics of certain axis II conditions in the DSM-IV. This will be our last interaction as when I identify those characteristics (outside of the professional setting), I permanently disengage with such individuals. We're done.1 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »That's cool. I understand and accept that there is a difference in perception of what food means to each of us.
Let me ask another hopefully provocative question - and this is in the light that I am a quality over quantity guy, ie, I do "primal" dieting sticking to whole foods, buy all my meats pastured/grassfed from individual farmers etc.
WHO DO THE CEO's OF BIG FOOD LIKE BETTER?
(ie, the people who make billions$$$$ off of non-whole foods, not like the farmers who I buy from who just get by).
Me
or
You (Referring to the people who responded to my recent post).
??????
Honest question, do you feel you are somehow morally superior to eating from local farmers and pastured/grassfed meats? If we go down this route, do you also suggest non GMO organic as well? Because not all of us have 2-3x the budget to afford that, not the want to. Nor do we all have the ability to obtain those foods easily. And I am certainly not driving an hour or two just to get that kind of foods. Luckily, my local grocery stores source locally grown/raised foods. So at the same time, I am supporting both a large business and a local business.
Also, just because I fully support big business, why would it mean that I automatically eat crap food? Do I incorporate treats.. absolutely. But it's not a large part of my calories and I still get more whole foods than most.
No I don't feel that I am morally superior. I was using my stance as a counter example to "the CICO" from the eyes of big business. Apologies if it came across as that way.
We don't suggest any of these things because of what you said, even if we can afford them ourselves. Food is a spectrum of choices and some are better choices than others, . Some are also not accessible to certain individuals due to cost and geography, so those obviously must be taken into account. But even then, all individuals do have choices that ARE accessible. We do educate on the spectrum of food choices to help someone make better food choices within the portions of the spectrum that are available to them.
That's pretty awesome that your grocery stores source those things. Great that you eat a lot of whole foods.
I'm not unsupportive of big business, I'm just unsupportive of big pharma and big food in general.
Sorry, but I find that sad. What big pharma and big food has accomplished has been remarkable. Without the billions invested by these entities, our society would never be what it is today. They have eradicated a lot of diseases, improve conditions that would never be controlled without medicine and been able to produce lots of foods for millions. And without them, most of our scientific break through's would never have occurred due to lack of funding.
And don't get me wrong, there has also been cooperate greed, and I get that, but without those entities, my wife would be dead and so would most of her family.
I'm sorry to hear about your wife and her family's close call. That must have been rough.
More physicians are now airing on the side of trying to prevent the big ticket "western" diseases from happening in the first place, but is that in the best interest of drug companies?
From the sounds of your post, it seems like there is a very very strong support for big pharma and big food on your part, and I am getting the sense that that is shared among many of the forum members who have a similar line of thinking. This may explain a lot of what I see now that I think about it.
I'm not directing this at you, I'm just thinking out loud... If the line of thinking is that weight loss is the focus, and that CICO is the (only) law that governs it, and that no food can be bad for you and are just vehicles for various macro and micro nutrients, food is food, and big pharma and big food are seen as positively instrumental entities in our society (even saviours).... no wonder many have emotionally negative reactions and outright denial to the things I have been posting. It's certainly another level of challenge to breakthrough to the masses.
If I view food as food and vehicle for macro and micro nutrient delivery...what's wrong with that? Doesn't that just help me meet my macro and micro goals for the day? What else is there to consider? If I am meeting my nutritional goals, why is it bad if I buy and eat Big Food-produced Twinkies?
I'm assuming that you are asking the question honestly and I could answer for hours, but it probably won't be well received by the masses here (because nothing I say on this subject is). My short answer is, just because a food is macro or micro nutrient neutral in the context of someone's daily goals does not mean that it doesn't have a widespread deleterious effect. Over a lifetime, even daily small amounts can add up to potentially large cumulative doses. One can argue, if it isn't necessary from a macro and micro N standpoint, why bother? But maybe that's just us and our line of thinking.
Part of my mind has to ask though - has nobody ever tried to convince you that chronic disease could in fact be related to these big food produced twinkies independent of caloric content and macros?
My question would be if I got the ingredients from local farmers and made the Twinkies or something equivalent myself rather than buying them from a Big Food company, would you still have a problem with me including an occasional Twinkie in my diet if my diet overall was still mostly lean meats, fruit, veggies, etc.? (And I actually don't even like Twinkies and I don't eat them, I'm just curious).6
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions